Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/681

LAVIN V. EMIGRANT INDUSTKIAL SAVING3 BANK. 673 �properly issue, except on proof of that fact to the satisfac- tion of the surrogate. There is, therefore, no ground for holding that the rule of the statute can be defended on the principles of estoppel in pais. �As to this particular case there is no evidence that the defendant knew or relied on anything but the New York letters. There is no evidence that the defendant knew or inquired upon what evidence Lavin was found by the surrogate to be dead. And if they had seen the proofs exhibited to the sur- rogate they would not have given any information as to any voluntary act or conduct of the plaintiff, except that he was absent from Ehode Island without proof of bis being alive. Therefore the defendant cannot be held to bave been in- fluenced by the plaintia's alleged conduct in absenting him- self from the state for so long a time without communication. Any further discussion of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as applied to the case, is unnecessary. �The position taken that all persons hold their property Bubject to existing laws must be qonceded, with some very important limitations. Unquestionably all persons within the jurisdiction of the state hold their property subject to restriction as to its use by the exercise, on the part of the state, of the police power already referred to, and, in thia sense, subject to the laws of the state, whether enacted before or after the title was acquired. But ^he laws must be valid and constitutional laws. The state cannot take away from property the essential character of property. It cannot, under cover of the exercise of the police power, make prop- erty already acquired, or thereafter to be acquired, subject to be taken away from its owner without due process of law. It could not pass a general law providing as to all after- acquired property that it should be held on the tenure or condition that, in certain prescribed cases, it should be taken from the owner and given to another without any form of judicial proceeding, without notice or an opportunity to be heard. �A construction which would allow this would, in effect, allow �v.l,no.9— 43 ��� �